COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Coleman and Bray 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

STEVEN LAMONTE STANLEY, JR., S/K/A 

 STEVEN LAMONT STANLEY, JR., A/K/A 

 STEVEN DUNFORD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1902-98-2 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 DECEMBER 28, 1999 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

W. Park Lemmond, Jr., Judge Designate 

 (Margaret Ann Englisby; Denis C. Englisby; 

Englisby & Englisby, on brief), for 

appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. 

 (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; 

Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee 

submitting on brief. 

 

*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

 Steven Lamont Stanley was convicted in a bench trial of 

robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-58. On appeal, Stanley argues 

that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction 

because the acts constituting the required element of violence did 

not precede or were not concomitant with the taking of the 

property of another from her person or presence. We disagree and 

affirm the conviction. 
- 2 - 

BACKGROUND

 Patricia Aumiller, the victim, was approaching a pay phone 

located at the entrance of a grocery store when she noticed a man 

and woman at an adjoining pay phone. While Aumiller dialed the 

phone, the woman grabbed Aumiller's purse from her right shoulder, 

and as Aumiller turned around, the man struck her in the face. 

The couple then fled with Aumiller's purse. Aumiller estimated 

that approximately two to three seconds elapsed between the time 

her purse was taken and when she was struck. Although Aumiller 

stated that Stanley looked "identical" to the man who struck her, 

she could not positively identify Stanley as the perpetrator. 

 Janet Bookman testified that as she left the grocery store 

that evening, she noticed two people step onto the sidewalk and 

run over to the pay phones. She watched as one person picked up 

the phone receiver and pretended to use the phone. Bookman 

testified that the man walked towards her and passed within a foot 

of her. Bookman continued to walk to her car and as she looked 

back toward the pay phones, she saw the man strike Aumiller, 

hitting her twice in the face, and grab her purse. Bookman 

observed the man and woman run off together behind the grocery 

store passing the stolen purse back and forth. Bookman later 

identified Stanley in a photographic lineup and at trial as the 

man at the grocery store who struck Aumiller and stole her purse. 
- 3 - 

ANALYSIS

 Stanley argues that the evidence failed to prove that the 

force or violence preceded or was concomitant with the taking of 

Aumiller's purse because two to three seconds elapsed between the 

two events. Stanley also argues that the evidence failed to prove 

that he was the perpetrator because Aumiller's testimony was 

completely contradicted by Bookman's testimony. 

 On review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party and grant to it all reasonable inferences 

fairly deducible therefrom. See Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 255 Va. 

516, 521, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998). "The credibility of the 

witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely 

for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that 

evidence as it is presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. 

App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). "The judgment of a 

trial court sitting without a jury is entitled to the same weight 

as a jury verdict, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless 

plainly wrong or without evidence to support it." Beck v. 

Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 170, 172, 342 S.E.2d 642, 643 (1986). 

 Robbery is "the taking, with intent to steal, of the personal 

property of another, from his person or in his presence, against 

his will, by violence or intimidation." Pierce v. Commonwealth, 

205 Va. 528, 532, 138 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1964). "The act of violence 

or intimidation employed must precede or be concomitant with the 
- 4 - 

taking." Beard v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 359, 362, 451 S.E.2d 

698, 700 (1994) (citing Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566, 

572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196 (1992)). "The touching or violation 

necessary to prove [robbery] may be indirect, but cannot result 

merely from the force associated with the taking." Bivins v. 

Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 750, 752, 454 S.E.2d 741, 742 (1995) 

(citation omitted). Similarly, violence resorted to merely to 

retain possession already acquired or to effect escape will be 

insufficient to supply the force necessary to support a robbery 

conviction. See Manson v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 253, 256, 105 

S.E.2d 149, 151 (1958). 

 Where, as here, the facts establish that the violence against 

Aumiller and the trespass to her "'combine in a continuing, 

unbroken sequence of events, the robbery itself continues as well 

for the same period of time.'" Quesinberry v. Commonwealth, 241 

Va. 364, 373, 402 S.E.2d 218, 224 (1991) (citation omitted); see

Person v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 36, 40, 389 S.E.2d 907, 910 

(1990). Stanley struck Aumiller within two to three seconds after 

her purse was removed from her shoulder and while Aumiller was 

trying to resist the taking. See Beard, 19 Va. App. at 363, 451 

S.E.2d at 700 (finding that "asportation of stolen property 

continues and is not complete until the taker severs the property 

from the absolute control and possession of the victim"); see also

Jones v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 736, 496 S.E.2d 668 (1998) 
- 5 - 

(finding defendant guilty of robbery where defendant "jerked" the 

victim around to face him before taking her purse); cf. Winn v. 

Commonwealth, 21 Va. App. 179, 462 S.E.2d 911 (1995) (reversing 

defendant's robbery conviction where defendant "very strongly" 

removed victim's purse from her shoulder). On these facts, 

Stanley's striking Aumiller was part of the force used to take 

Aumiller's property and was sufficiently close in time and effect 

to be concomitant with the taking. 

 When weighing the evidence, the fact finder is not required 

to accept entirely either party's account of the facts. See

Barrett v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 102, 107, 341 S.E.2d 190, 193 

(1986). The fact finder may reject that which it finds 

implausible, yet accept other parts which it finds to be 

believable. See Durham v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 166, 169, 198 

S.E.2d 603, 606 (1973). Here, the fact that Aumiller could not 

positively identify Stanley as her assailant did not render the 

evidence insufficient. Rather, the lack of a positive 

identification by the victim was a fact to be weighed by the 

court. Bookman, a witness who observed the events and passed 

close to Stanley, positively identified him as the assailant. 

Although Bookman's and Aumiller's recitation of the event differed 

in some degree, the fact finder is not bound by either's version 

and could believe that which is more favorable to the 
- 6 - 

Commonwealth. See Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 249-50, 397 

S.E.2d 385, 393 (1990). 

 Accordingly, we affirm Stanley's conviction for robbery. 

Affirmed.